The advice and rantings of a Hollywood script reader tired of seeing screenwriters make the same mistakes, saving the world from bad writing one screenplay at a time. Learn what it takes to get your script past one of these mythical Gatekeepers.

Thursday, June 7, 2012

Finally, " let's not forget that the terms of the Amazon Contest make this 100% legal. As much as this behavior might disgust you or I, this is Amazon Studios working the way it was designed to work. Allow THAT to send a cold chill up your spine."

-- umm, so writers submit work to a company, and the company abides by the terms of the agreement and there is absolutely NOTHING to suggest they are going to rip off the writers in monetary terms, but that is somehow chilling?

Yes, it's chilling. Just because it's legal doesn't mean that it's not a bad idea for writers to participate. And as I pointed out in the portion you quoted, it's entirely possible under the terms of the original agreement for a writer who submitted back in December 2010 to have had their work held hostage up until now with nothing more than $10,000 paid out.

Admittedly, I don't know how the grandfather clause might work for materials submitted under the new agreement, but renewed under the new one. However, either way, it's clear the writers are legally entitled to remuneration for Amazon to hold their script, and Amazon's own blog confirms they received $10,000 as part of the development slate.

The chilling part is that Amazon Studios pitched themselves to all of the aspiring screenwriters who were desperate to break in. Everyone who put their script up there had dreams of their script, THEIR vision being made into a movie. I don't think anyone signed up to have their script held in limbo for two year, their underlying premise bought at a fraction of the prize money dangled for a "winning script," have the project announced without their names associated with it in any way, and then see industry veterans brought in to claim all the credit.

That's not the dream that had AS devotees drinking the Kool-Aid for the last 18 months. But it's not at all a violation of the rules either. And that's what I mean by "chilling." That Amazon is totally within their rights to pull a Lucy Van Pelt - spiking the football for Charlie Brown to kick, and then pull it away at the last second.

The other thing about Amazon Studios that concerns me is how there was a lot of hype about their first test film THE NEVSKY PROSPECT while it was in production, only to have it vanish into thin air. As I indicated yesterday, it seems like the sort of thing that could have really embarassed the shingle if anyone who mattered was paying attention.

I'm going to lay out the timeline of events as bluntly as possible, and I invite any intrepid reporters to take this background information and run with it. Much of this information comes either directly from Amazon Studios, or the production blog of the test film itself.

Fact: In April 2011, THE NEVSKY PROSPECT is one of the winning entries in the monthly contest. As such, the screenwriting team collects $20,000.Source

Fact: In September 2011, Amazon Studios announces they are "working with established filmmakers, animators and others to produce three additional test movies," including THE NEVSKY PROSPECT.Source

Fact: Professional actors were hired under a SAG New Media agreement. Source

Fact: Under the SAG New Media rules, eligible projects are "Independently produced original, made for new
media (MFNM) entertainment productions that will initially be exhibited
via the Internet, mobile devices or any other platform known or which
may be adopted but excluding motion pictures, commercials,
and video games covered by the Basic Agreement, Television Agreement,
the SAG Industrial/Educational Agreement, the SAG Infomercials
Agreement, SAG Interactive Agreement or the SAG Commercials Contract."
(emphasis added.)Source

Fact: At some point after the movie goes live, it is removed from Amazon's site. A message at the link reads: Video currently unavailable. Due to our licensing agreements this video is currently not available for purchase or rental."Source

My questions:
In order to qualify for the SAG New Media Agreement, the project couldn't be a motion picture. Also, if it was a motion picture, Amazon would then owe the script's writer the $200,000 purchase price. Having outlined the each step of this production, does it seem right to you that Amazon can just declare this film to be a "test film" and thus, sidestep numerous obligations it would otherwise have to pay? What determines when a project stops being a "test film" and becomes a real film?

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. So why isn't THE NEVSKY PROSPECT a film? Why can I find no announcement that the script was purchased for $200,000?

Why is THE NEVSKY PROSPECT "test film" no longer available online?

And though I don't wish to delve into the specifics of the writer's complaints, why is the original writer of THE NEVSKY PROSPECT so bitter and disgruntled with Amazon Studios?

Folks, do me a favor. Link to this article. Tweet it and discuss it on your own blogs. I want this post high in Google searches for Amazon Studios so that when the time comes, journalists doing background work on the shingle will find this easily organized account of THE NEVSKY PROSPECT.

All of this is out there, but no one's drawing attention to it. Should Amazon Studios ever have reason to trumpet the accomplishment of completing Zombies v. Gladiators, I'd like to see these valid questions cling to them like a wet T-shirt.

Taking all of this in total, I don't understand anyone who believes that Amazon Studios is or has ever been a great venue for screenwriters to get discovered and launch their careers. Is there anyone who isn't the least bit wary of this history? These first few writers are the guinea pigs, and where Amazon should be making a spectacle of how awesome it is for them, all they seem to provoke is a lot of uncomfortable questions.

8 comments:

Thanks for this info and the previous post on Amazon Studios. I myself had uploaded a script on AS but was just starting to have second thoughts about the whole thing when all this came to light. As a result I've deleted my project.

By the way, the Zombies vs Gladiators / Clive Barker news are now hitting the social networks here in Finland too, and yes, still no mention of the two original writers. I've linked your post on the subject to the threads, hoping to get the word out. As a writer, the lack of acknowledgement never ceases to amaze me...

Clarification: The SAG new media agreement merely states that a movie merely needs to premiere online first. I got a clarification of this @ Digital Hollywood Spring last month. And a festival screening isn't considered a premiere.

This doesn't excuse Amazon's behavior, it merely explains it. They've apparently found this same loophole, and exploited it for financial gain.

I do agree that a movie that gets made by Amazon should indeed no longer be considered a test film, and if I haven't written too much here already, I will gladly track back to your excellent article.

My eyes glaze over when the money end of the entertainment biz is the topic of the day. Still, the articles done on this website about the legal/ethical miasma building (AGAIN) around the 'zonstudios are invaluable.

All of us, but particularly those who have to put in 40 a week, have limited time and resources. We need to know where to allocate the products of our precious investment in sweat and temporal/financial treasure.

The bottom line, in all objectivity, seems to be NOT AT AMAZONSTUDIOS. Because even when you win you lose. And the odds of winning are long enough.

This seems to put paid to the claims by some that amazonstudios.2, with its 45-day "option" and other incentive bells and whistles, finally made the 'zon a "good deal." It did not, and does not. For Chrissakes, they yank the rug out from under their own "winners," the same nightmare way the "Old Hollywood" did and does when every dot and jottle of a contract isn't sniffed over by an entertainment attorney you better hope works for you.

Thanks, but no thanks. I've found a nice little website where I can read and cover halfway decent amateur scripts, and upload my own, without constant fear of being ripped off, blindsided, attacked on the forum pages, or getting my named blackened by winning. It's called zoetrope.com, and that's where I'm going to hang my amateur hat for the time being (though I have heard that triggerstreet and talentville likewise work for some).

Thanks again for helping all of us semi-pros out in the internet hinterland make up our minds on the 'zon question.

Did I miss something - where's the financial gain for Amazon? They made a "test movie" with a $100k budget to be released online, presumably for notes/to generate attention/interest. You can't expect them to pay 200k on a 100k budget, right? And it was released for free, right? And then they pulled it - maybe it wasn't good enough, like all those test films that Pixar makes before they release their projects. What didn't happen is a large production the scale of Clive Barker, which if shot, would trigger the 200k. I'm not saying that Amazon's being the best studio ever here, just that it's not fair to expect them to pay the writers for something that they aren't really benefitting from yet. If that test movie gets theatrical distribution, that's a different story.

About Me

I've been reading scripts in Hollywood for over ten years. In that time I've read for Oscar-winning production companies, and one of the "Big Five" agencies, among others. I'm here to share what I've learned.... mostly because I'm sick of reading bad scripts.

I'm that guy you need to get past at the agencies and production companies; the first one in the office to read the script.